Potential of stable isotope analysis to deduce anaerobic biodegradation of ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) and tert-butyl alcohol (TBA) in groundwater: a review.

Understanding anaerobic biodegradation of ether oxygenates beyond MTBE in groundwater is important, given that it is replaced by ETBE as a gasoline additive in several regions. The lack of studies demonstrating anaerobic biodegradation of ETBE, and its product TBA, reflects the relative resistance of ethers and alcohols with a tertiary carbon atom to enzymatic attack under anoxic conditions. Anaerobic ETBE- or TBA-degrading microorganisms have not been characterized. Only one field study suggested anaerobic ETBE biodegradation. Anaerobic (co)metabolism of ETBE or TBA was reported in anoxic microcosms, indicating their biodegradation potential in anoxic groundwater systems. Non-isotopic methods, such as the detection of contaminant loss, metabolites, or ETBE- and TBA-degrading bacteria are not sufficiently sensitive to track anaerobic biodegradation in situ. Compound- and position-specific stable isotope analysis provides a means to study MTBE biodegradation, but isotopic fractionation of ETBE has only been studied with a few aerobic bacteria (εC -0.7 to -1.7‰, εH -11 to -73‰) and at one anoxic field site (δ2H-ETBE +14‰). Similarly, stable carbon isotope enrichment (δ13C-TBA +6.5‰) indicated TBA biodegradation at an anoxic field site. CSIA and PSIA are promising methods to detect anaerobic ETBE and TBA biodegradation but need to be investigated further to assess their full potential at field scale.

Comparison of landfarming amendments to improve bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in Niger Delta soils.

Large scale landfarming experiments, using an extensive range of treatments, were conducted in the Niger-Delta, Nigeria to study the degradation of oil in contaminated soils. In this work the effect of nutrient addition, biosurfactant, Eisenia fetida (earthworm) enzyme extract, bulking and sorption agents and soil neutralization were tested. It was found that these treatments were successful in removing up to 53% of the total petroleum hydrocarbon in the soil within 16 weeks. A comparison between treatments demonstrated that most were no more effective than agricultural fertilizer addition alone. One strategy that did show better performance was a combination of nutrients, biochar and biosurfactant, which was found to remove 23% more Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) than fertilizer alone. However, when performance normalized costs were considered, this treatment became less attractive as a remedial option. Based on this same analysis it was concluded that fertilizer only was the most cost effective treatment. As a consequence, it is recommended that fertilizer is used to enhance the landfarming of hydrocarbon contaminated soils in the Niger Delta. The attenuation rates of both bulk TPH and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) fractions are also provided. These values represent one of the first large scale and scientifically tested datasets for treatment of contaminated soil in the Niger Delta region. An inverse correlation between attenuation rates and hydrocarbon molecular weight was observed with heavy fractions showing much slower degradation rates than lighter fractions. Despite this difference, the bioremediation process resulted in significant removal of all TPH compounds independent of carbon number.

The rationale for simple approaches for sustainability assessment and management in contaminated land practice.

The scale of land-contamination problems, and of the responses to them, makes achieving sustainability in contaminated land remediation an important objective. The Sustainable Remediation Forum in the UK (SuRF-UK) was established in 2007 to support more sustainable remediation practice in the UK. The current international interest in 'sustainable remediation' has achieved a fairly rapid consensus on concepts, descriptions and definitions for sustainable remediation, which are now being incorporated into an ISO standard. However the sustainability assessment methods being used remain diverse with a range of (mainly) semi-quantitative and quantitative approaches and tools developed, or in development. Sustainability assessment is site specific and subjective. It depends on the inclusion of a wide range of considerations across different stakeholder perspectives. Taking a tiered approach to sustainability assessment offers important advantages, starting from a qualitative assessment and moving through to semi-quantitative and quantitative assessments on an 'as required' basis only. It is also clear that there are a number of 'easy wins' that could improve performance against sustainability criteria right across the site management process. SuRF-UK has provided a checklist of 'sustainable management practices' that describes some of these. This paper provides the rationale for, and an outline of, and recently published SuRF-UK guidance on preparing for and framing sustainability assessments; carrying out qualitative sustainability assessment; and simple good management practices to improve sustainability across contaminated land management activities.

Benchmarking of Decision-Support Tools Used for Tiered Sustainable Remediation Appraisal.

Sustainable remediation comprises soil and groundwater risk-management actions that are selected, designed, and operated to maximize net environmental, social, and economic benefit (while assuring protection of human health and safety). This paper describes a benchmarking exercise to comparatively assess potential differences in environmental management decision making resulting from application of different sustainability appraisal tools ranging from simple (qualitative) to more quantitative (multi-criteria and fully monetized cost-benefit analysis), as outlined in the SuRF-UK framework. The appraisal tools were used to rank remedial options for risk management of a subsurface petroleum release that occurred at a petrol filling station in central England. The remediation options were benchmarked using a consistent set of soil and groundwater data for each tier of sustainability appraisal. The ranking of remedial options was very similar in all three tiers, and an environmental management decision to select the most sustainable options at tier 1 would have been the same decision at tiers 2 and 3. The exercise showed that, for relatively simple remediation projects, a simple sustainability appraisal led to the same remediation option selection as more complex appraisal, and can be used to reliably inform environmental management decisions on other relatively simple land contamination projects.

Nitrate attenuation in groundwater: a review of biogeochemical controlling processes.

Biogeochemical processes controlling nitrate attenuation in aquifers are critically reviewed. An understanding of the fate of nitrate in groundwater is vital for managing risks associated with nitrate pollution, and to safeguard groundwater supplies and groundwater-dependent surface waters. Denitrification is focused upon as the dominant nitrate attenuation process in groundwater. As denitrifying bacteria are essentially ubiquitous in the subsurface, the critical limiting factors are oxygen and electron donor concentration and availability. Variability in other environmental conditions such as nitrate concentration, nutrient availability, pH, temperature, presence of toxins and microbial acclimation appears to be less important, exerting only secondary influences on denitrification rates. Other nitrate depletion mechanisms such as dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium and assimilation of nitrate into microbial biomass are unlikely to be important in most subsurface settings relative to denitrification. Further research is recommended to improve current understanding on the influence of organic carbon, sulphur and iron electron donors, physical restrictions on microbial activity in dual porosity aquifers, influences of environmental condition (e.g. pH in poorly buffered environments and salinity in coastal or salinized soil settings), co-contaminant influences (particularly the contrasting inhibitory and electron donor influences of pesticides) and improved quantification of denitrification rates in the laboratory and field.